In fact, on that last point and as reported by Natural Blaze, in the Obama economy, 1-in-6 Americans are going to bed hungry on most nights, if not every night.

And Clinton wants to double down on Obama's economic policies?

How can such a great economic recovery produce so many hungry Americans?

For the past eight years, Americans have had to listen to lectures from Obama (and other Democrats) about how we, as a first-world nation, should be able to afford things like healthcare and offer a free college education to our citizens (and, increasingly, to non-citizens). But shouldn't a nation that produces so much excess food each year that we export it to the tune of tens of billions of dollars be able to feed its people too?

Of course. But malnutrition during the "great economic recovery" of the Obama years is rising at an alarming rate in the U.S. That's because in real terms, workers' wages are falling, and it is becoming more difficult for families and individuals to earn enough to put decent food on their tables.

Low salaries combined with stagnant wages, jobs going to illegal immigrants and part-time work rising as Obamacare forces fewer companies to retain full-time employees, mean that food is increasingly seen as a luxury. And of those who can still afford food, many have to settle for cheap, nutrition-poor junk foods and foods high in starches, carbohydrates and calories. Now, winter approaches, and with it the inevitable supply challenges of natural gas and heating oil, which traditionally produce higher prices.

But the establishment media is part of the problem. For example, in February Bloombergreported that 1-in-7 Americans were on food stamps, despite an economic recovery.

No one should ever be hungry in America unless they choose to be

What recovery? Obama's economy is growing at about 1–2 percent a quarter – far below what is needed to sustain economic growth to the extent that it would lower our debt and provide well-paying jobs to the tens of millions needing them.

So, the caveat is disingenuous. A more accurate story would have reflected on the 1-in-7 figure as it pertained to a real lack of opportunity among Americans to find better employment opportunities. In fact, the story makes no sense when you analyze it; either the economy is really good and a 1-in-7 ratio is no big deal, or the ratio is a big deal because the so-called economic recovery isn't reaching enough people. Which is it?

It's the latter of course. And while America will always have a portion of the population that is too sick, too old or too lazy to produce – and they will be a net drain on the Treasury – the goal of any administration ought to be to adopt sound financial policies or to rescind policies that serve as impediments to economic growth. In today's America, that generally means thinning out the massive bureaucracy that is not only robbing millions of a better life because of their negative impact on business and industry, but is actually causing them to go hungry.